31
Hello All:

I would like to add another consideration to this discussion. In my research involving a large number of charts from AstroDataBank, I have found that Mutual Receptions, both positive (by Rulership and Exaltation) and negative (by Detriment and Fall), act in exactly the same way as if the planets involved had been in the corresponding dignity or debility.
Because of this, I am of the opinion that mutual receptions do cancel peregrinity. I know that this is not Lilly's view, or John Frawley's for that matter.
I would like to know how others feel about this, particularly if they base their understanding on experience.
Thanks.

33
Peregrine means a lack of essential dignity. Essential dignity is defined as a planet in its own domicile, exaltation, terms, or face. That doesn't change when a planet is in mutual reception. The subject planet is still lacking in essential dignity, unless we take a position that few if any traditional authors take, that the dignity is somehow transferred to the peregrine planet. Planets in mutual reception work together. They do not swap places and no traditional author makes the claim that they do. When we make a perfect pairing of a wine and a meal, they work well together. The wine does not become the meal and the meal does not become the wine. The essential character of both remains the same with or without the introduction of the other.

Tom

34
They do not swap places and no traditional author makes the claim that they do.
Indeed. The first author I am aware of suggesting that planets 'exchange places' due to mutual reception was I think Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson in her book Simplified Horary Astrology. published in 1960.

Her ideas have been influential on many American practitioners of astrology.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

36
Planets in detriment and fall technically can't receive, at least according to some authors. So, Moon in Cap and Mars in Libra are just plain square, and not 'helping' each other at all, or at least it isn't the kind of help anybody wants. Though I see this more clearly with things like Moon and Saturn both in Cancer - ouch ouch ouch, especially the closer they are to conjunct. Not a happy pairing, even though the Moon's at home there, but Saturn certainly isn't - it just corrupts.

I have a weird generosity going, too. Venus in Pisces and Jupiter in Libra, which are also in each other's terms and face. It may just be that Venus is LoG in my chart and Jupiter's angular, but the two of them do seem to work together pretty strongly. Not sure, but they're my two strongest planets anyway, and the generosity/reception does seem to kick in.

I've also got a Jupiter/Mercury opposition, and they're in mutual reception by triplicity. Which seems to cancel out some of the harm of the opposition and both of them being retrograde - once upon a time long ago and far away I was a successful writer, and Jupiter and Mercury opposed don't really seem to point to that.

One of the things that helps ease the imbecility of retrograde planets (okay that's accidental detriment but close enough) is if it's rendered (in aspect to) a benefic that's direct. A lot of the harm of the retrograde goes poof - at least in my experience. I think it was the Arabs that wrote about that one, but I haven't got a cite right handy. It is a wise thing to keep a look-out for, though, especially natally, but to a certain extent it seems to have effect in horary, too.

37
Negative mutual reception is interesting, and perhaps planets so posited should have an effect on each other. It seems as though they should, even if certain authorities disagree. One example does not a rule make, but there is one that seems to work well. Janis Joplin had Saturn in Gemini and Jupiter in Cancer. Saturn ruled her Aquarius ASC. Saturn was on the 4th cusp and Jupiter was in the 5th house of pleasure or pleasurable activities. Saturn was in a mundane square to the ASC and disposited her 12th house Mercury. So Saturn seems pretty clearly to indicate depression. Jupiter in exaltation in the 5th seems pretty clearly to indicate excess good times, and it was excess that killed her. The idea is that her depression fueled the excess and the excess fueled the depression. This vicious cycle continued until her untimely death at age 27. This cycle might have been best expressed by Joplin herself. A few weeks before she died Jimi Hendrix was found dead of an overdose. When told, she replied, "Rats, he beat me to it."

There is, of course, more to her and her life than these two planets, but the parts of her life that worked against her most seem to be captured in this negative reception.

Tom

PS I took a look at Joplin's solar return for 1970 after writing the above. The idea is that if Jupiter and Saturn are connected in the natal chart indicating some kind of destructive behavior, that connection will somehow be activated in the solar return for the year of her death. I tried to find out where she was in January 1970 but did not definitely pinpoint it. I may have it though, but I cannot confirm it. I know she ended her relationship with one band in either December 1969 or January 1970. Her drug addiction was bad at that time and she travelled to Brazil in February 1970 to dry out. I found out that she visited friends in Tuchas, New Mexico in 1970 and the chronologies given from the time of her trip to Brazil to her death in October do not seem to allow for time for what appears to be an extended visit. So I used it and I also used her birthplace where I believe her parents still lived, as well as taking a guess that she lived in LA.

The chart that most indicates her death is the one cast for New Mexico, but all charts have a Jupiter in Scorpio - Saturn in Taurus opposition that falls by antiscion fairly close (about 2 degrees) to the natal ASC - DSC axis. Of course this would be true in any chart.

The Tuchas chart and the Port Arthur Texas chart put Saturn, her natal ASC ruler, in the 8th house of the return and Jupiter in the second. Venus rules the natal 8th house and in the return she is combust. Interestingly in the return charts she is in a mutual reception by exaltation with Mars which is the ruler of the return 8th in Texas and NM. This is a reversal of the natal chart where Venus rules the 8th and Mars rules the 2nd.

Now I'm drifting from the point that the natal connection by mutual reception by detriment is activated by the opposition in the return - no matter where she spent it. Of the three return charts the natal and Tuchas, NM charts seem most revealing. LA does not and watch it turn out that she spent her last birthday there.
Last edited by Tom on Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

38
Now, I feel my chart can be a good example for this...

My chart almuten is Mars, and it's conjunct Venus in Leo. And as already stated, my Saturn is in Scorpio.

The result in my chart tends to be very easily verifiable and seen, and I'll use Frawley "style" to make my point easier to grasp:

Saturn in early degrees of Scorpio loves Mars, Mars hates Saturn, Venus and Saturn hates each other.

The effect is interesting: Saturn produces bad effects in terms of venusian matters and to the houses she rules, and the damage is reciprocated. Now, Saturn does not damage martial matters, due to the mixed reception, actually, for Mars, my Saturn tends to be very efficient in providing support that results in somewhat positive things for me, since Saturn is one of the two angular planets on my chart (understand that this 'positive' is in the good old Saturn style, and because Saturn rules 10th and 11th, and Mars 1st and 8th, we ought to see some result there anyway, even if this Saturn dispositing is peregrine, as in my case). Still, what is ruled by my Saturn tends to get damaged by my Mars, since he still hates Saturn, even more because he's conjunct Venus.
Last edited by PFN on Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

39
Hi All.

I'm enjoying the responses to my request for sharing of experiences. Thanks all.

One of the respondents brought up the "planets exchanging places" theory that some people subscribe to. I wanted to make it clear that I do not subscribe to that theory. My only contention is that planets in negative or positive mutual receptions are similarly benefited or hurt, both in their strength as well as the quality of their influence (good vs. evil). I don't believe for a minute they "swap places."

I also agree that being in a positive mutual reception doesn't confer essential dignity. Can't argue with a definition (though one could argue that perhaps he wasn't precise enough). Nevertheless, it seems to me that being strengthened and benefited in quality, by whatever means, should overcome being in the weak state and poor quality that being peregrine really means.

When assigning points, Lilly gave equal essential dignity points for mutual receptions involving rulership and exaltation. He must of had some basis for doing this. Later on, his student Coley continued this practise, implying that Lilly continued to do so after CA was written and towards the end of his life (he obviously read Coley's book as evidenced by the front matter).

With respect to negative mutual receptions, I have verified that they exist and work exactly as John Frawley described them.

One of the reasons I'm wondering if positive mutual receptions don't offset peregrinity is that peregrinity occurs very often in charts and it doesn't seem to have much effect on things. Either there's not much to it or something else, beyond what is traditionally accepted, compensates for it.


Cheers

40
When assigning points, Lilly gave equal essential dignity points for mutual receptions involving rulership and exaltation. He must of had some basis for doing this.
To the best of my knowledge, Lilly didn't invent this system, but I don't know who did. Morin refers to it and credits "the ancients." He doesn't mention Lilly, although they were contemporaries, I don't know if either was aware of the existence of the other.

Secondly I think too much importance is placed on it. I've never seen a reference in Christian Astrology or anywhere else that reads like this: Saturn has 7 points and Mars only has 5 so Saturn is of more importance in this chart." And then the astrologer goes on to make a judgment based on that. It seems to me that the list is a guideline consisting of useful information, but that it is not used by adding up the scores and comparing them. For example, it is useful to realize that a particular planet in triplicity and terms has as much essential dignity as a planet in exaltation, but it does not necessarily follow the the planet in exaltation will be no more influential in the chart. Or if the planet in exaltation is cadent and the other is angular, it might explain why the latter is more influential than a planet in exaltation.

Although the information is useful, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the scores, and I would resist the urge to judge the planets by simnply adding up the points.

Tom

41
Since I have it handy, I thought I would add this reference to where Lilly gives a definition of peregrine in a margin note in CA (p.331) which reads:"A planet is then peregrine when he is neither in his house, triplicity, term, exaltation or face."

42
p19997 wrote:In my research involving a large number of charts from AstroDataBank, I have found that Mutual Receptions, both positive (by Rulership and Exaltation) and negative (by Detriment and Fall), act in exactly the same way as if the planets involved had been in the corresponding dignity or debility.
Because of this, I am of the opinion that mutual receptions do cancel peregrinity. I know that this is not Lilly's view, or John Frawley's for that matter.
My opinion is that a planet located in a state of debilitation, ie. peregrine, detriment or fall, is not in a position to offer assistance to any other planet by reception. On the contrary, what the planet has to offer to those planets that it disposes of is more likely to be rather a drag, worry or concern. It is like going to a bank only to discover that it has run out of cash. Or, you are invited to a party but when you reach your host's place it is only to discover that the cupboard is bare.

A planet out of its dignities is in a state of poverty and weakness. For a reception to be beneficial at least one planet has to be essentially dignified or in a state of comfort. If a planet is disposed by a planet that is in the detriment of fall of the first planet ('deception') then this indicates a relationship that doesn't balance out because the one part keeps letting the side down or does damage to the other. If two planets are located in signs of each others debilation ('rejection') then the two planets abhor each other and the matter is aborted.

Goldstein-Jacobsen says that a debilitated planet may be saved by reception, but I still maintain that the participating planet must be of such a quality that it actually has something to offer.

On pages 178-180 of Christian Astrology, Lilly does not let the reception between Mercury and Saturn by face, save them from perigrination.
http://www.astronor.com